Why do you think Obama Won?

Republicans ran a racist campaign that alienated Latinos and blacks, and even white working class people in the rust belt were not happy with the assault on the unions and the nay-saying about the successful auto bailout. The Republican war on women hurt them even with white females and buried them with women of color. By 2050, whites will no longer even be a majority of Americans. Republicans have some soul searching to do if they are to remain a viable party.

The Republicans didn’t even want Romney. They did everything they could to find a different candidate.
Obama has the economy improving, the wars ending, and bin Laden scuba diving.

I think that if the republicans dropped the gay rights issues, and the abortion issue, they would have had a real shot at winning. Basically, leave the bible at home.

He’s more a man of the people. Romney couldn’t get away from his elite background. Obviously, wealthy people have been president, but people could see them as real people. Romney wasn’t able to get there.

300 million people in America—there’s not going to be a single reason that applies to all of them.

I think a lot of it has to do with character. People like Obama, and not many people like Romney. Romney lied a lot; Obama is trustworthy. Not trying to be partisan here—Bush won partly for the same reason.

A lot of it is changing demographics. The GOP has demonized minorities and now that white people are themselves a minority, this has come back to bite them.

Then there’s the simple matter of policy. Romney constantly flip-flopped on his policy, but it’s clear that he favored supply-side, trickle-down economics. Obama favored a social safety net and progressive taxation. People just don’t like the GOP’s economic policy. After Bush, most Americans realize it’s bullshit.

To say nothing of foreign policy; only wingnuts believe that Obama “apologizes for America” and that Benghazi bullshit. The travesty of Bush’s foreign policy is still fresh in many peoplle’s memory; Obama’s foreign policy has been sober and successful, and the GOP has clearly lost this former edge.

Romney’s demeanor is stiff and awkward.

The Romney campaign kept lying and getting caught at it (example: what they said about the auto industry).

The Republican positions on issues of importance to Latino voters totally alienated that block of voters.

Mitt couldn’t win his own state. To me, that says a lot about a campaign. He chose a running mate that is not able to swing voters from the other side of his own state.

As a Wisconsinite, I could understand why he chose Ryan, but the people of this state don’t have Ryan’s back. There was no way he could help Mitt win if he couldn’t help him swing the battleground states.

Republicans should have selected Marco Rubio. They didn’t. It’s obvious to me, the Evangelicals just can’t support people of any color other than day-glo white. Did you see the crowds at Mitt’s last speeches? Pathetic.

Look at any Obama rally, and you’ll see via the colors & ages represented how much work the Republicans have ahead of themselves.

I actually think younger evangelicals are not racists.

Older voters tend to be more racist, and the GOP’s base is old and white.

@Qingu Hey, I’m old and white. Not all of us are racists. :-)

Aside from the issues that Republicans are simply on the wrong side of history about (equality, religion-based governing), the lying in Romney’s campaign, Obama’s appeal in minority groups including women, though we are no longer an actual minority and his team’s ability to get out the vote in those groups, the economy improving, and more.

From an outsiders point of view it really comes down to one thing, Romney comes across as an absolute head of a dick.
Although a massive amount of americans are clearly like minded, common sense prevailed.

One explanation I’ve heard is that the leadership displayed in Hurricane Sandy could be what pushed Obama over the top.

Probably because more people voted for him.

@PhiNotPi, the “Sandy stole the election” explanation is popular with Republicans, of course, because it means they don’t have to say Romney lost on merit.

But it’s not supported by facts. If you look at the polls Obama was already ahead of Romney before Sandy. The 2nd and 3rd debates reversed Romney’s momentum and Obama was maintaining a steady lead in Ohio well before the storm. Sandy might have solidified Obama’s lead, but it’s very unlikely Romney would have won without the storm.

Hurricane or no, it won’t be long before the party throws Romney under the bus. They never liked him to begin with. He will be blamed for all of it.

I heard a Republican commentator (or politician? I didn’t catch his name) talking last night about how the party will have to learn from this loss that they need to change the way they run the primaries, so that they don’t need to swing so dramatically from right to centre during the election… but I just can’t see it. Making the Republican party more diverse and more progressive will already be perceived as a loss by the party’s leaders. What would be the point?

Republicans have gone too far to the right (especially on social issues), and have become too exclusive a party. They have greatly alienated all the minorities, the youth vote, women… their swipes at voucherizing SS have even alienated some of the elderly.

If they don’t come back towards the middle, and open the door more to minorities, it will be a long time til they win a national election again.

Think of this, in the last 24 years the Republicans have won one nationwide popular vote. That’s vs five for the Democrats.

@glacial, I’m not quite as sure as you are that they’ll throw Romney under the bus. I’m sure the Tea Party base thinks they lost because Romney wasn’t conservative enough. But the problem with this sentiment is that it’s demonstrably untrue. Most Americans find the Tea Party revolting, and Mitt had his best polls by far when he swung to the center in the first debate.

The GOP party leaders must know—many of them have come outright and said so—that they need to reinvent themselves to be relevant in a diverse, younger, less traditional electorate.

In any case, it will be really interesting to watch what happens. I hope the GOP does reinvent itself into something less delusional and more inclusive, even if it’s a party I disagree with. What they are now is simply not worthy of national office.

@Qingu I agree that they can’t win on their current platform – but what I can’t guess is which planks they will throw out to win. For example, if they become pro-choice to win the election, and they win the election… have they really won? The next question is, having run on pro-choice policy, will they follow through with that? Or will they do exactly what they did after the 2010 midterms and start legislating on whatever they please, instead of what they ran on?

I think for the Republican party to really change, the old guard has to be completely replaced. The leaders need to believe in the policies they’re promoting – or what’s the point? Mere profit? Why even try to govern a nation if you don’t agree with any of the policies that that nation is voting to see you enact?

Romney ran a flawless campaign for the demographics of the nation in 1912. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, this is 2012. The country they want to take back no longer exists in this century. And even the Koch Brothers haven’t the cash to buy them a time machine to take the country back to the 1950s or before.

@glacial Rush Limbaugh was agonizing over that exact thought experiment today. It’s the closest I’ve come to feeling sorry for the guy since the back injury ended up getting him strung out on Oxycontin.

Obama did not win. Romney lost. There is a difference.

@rojo Obama turned out his base at almost the same levels as 2008. He won all the same demographics at the same or greater levels. Not to mention Obama won in an electoral college blowout (ironically the type many conservatives were foolishly predicting for Romney).

Romney may have been a crappy candidate, but Obama trounced him.

I don’t think Romney was a crappy candidate at all. He was highly intelligent, had business experience to campaign on in a struggling economy, and had a moderate record as governor of MA. He was an excellent debater, by all accounts he worked very hard during his campaign, and he commanded an unprecedented amount of campaign money (though much of it was Super pacs).

Romney faced systemic problems in the need to contort himself to appeal to the GOP base, and his plutocratic nature was offputting to many Americans even beyond the “47%” disaster.. But I definitely think he was a much stronger candidate than Bush or McCain—not to mention the parade of trogolodytes trotted out during the GOP primaries.

True, but how many people say they voted for Obama because of his policies and accomplishments and how many people because of the alternative offered?

Well, I voted for Obama because of his policies and accomplishments… and also because the alternative was terrible.

^^ Me, too.

Romney had no foreign relations experience.
He used to bully gay kids in school, getting his friends to hold them down while he cut their hair.
He ran a vulture capital business that put many out of business, and sent jobs overseas.
He has no spine. He flip flopped on every issue from abortion to Obamacare to immigration.
He wanted to lower taxes on the super rich, and have the middle class pay for it.
The two states that knew him best, Michigan and Massachusetts voted against him.
His plan for self deportation for illegals.